Zimmerman Protest At full force

[Glock]

Actually I ... am in law enforcement.

Nevermind.

GZ didn't start anything. All he did was call the police and try and gather intel for the police until they arrived. When he was told to stop following Martin he did. So how is that doing something wrong? The last time I checked it isn't. I agree that he should have stayed in the car but that wasn't instigating anything. Nor was it starting the ordeal. Martin started it by going over to GZ and getting into it with him.

We don't know that at all. We can only choose to believe what has been fed to us.

 

[Glocktogo]

Serious question, what did Zimmerman do that is "not how a responsible CCW'er should act"??

Following an unknown individual in a poorly lit area, in a situation where he suspected the person to be potentially in the process of committing a criminal act. That is a textbook definition of a foolhardy endeavor for a CCW permit holder.

You can be penalized in many states for acting in lethal self defense when you are responsible for starting the endeavor that ends in death. This is just not the law in Florida.

Yes, but merely following in the path of someone wouldn't rise to that standard. If that were the case, you could assault anyone who happened to be walking on the same path as you.

Would you confront and question someone following you in your neighborhood?

Yes absolutely, IF I were a law abiding citizen and was doing nothing wrong. It would go as follows:

"Excuse me, but can I help you?"

WOW, that sounded VERY threatening and ominous, didn't it! LOL

there also was a witness that saw Zimmerman on top beating Martin. there also was a witness that heard conversation from final minutes.

bottom line was defense did a much better job at discrediting witness against them than prosecution did in favor. think how different trial would have ended up had the female black witness been more believable?

all the cards were stacked in favor of defense. bar for murder 2 is so high all they had to do was introduce an element of doubt. defense had no obligation to prove innocence, only establish doubt exist. defense exploited the fact shooting took place in conditions so dark. despite multiple witnesses .. NO one was able to see clear enough to testify without doubt.

prosecution knew all of above .. yet they chose to pursue murder 2 .. knowing it would be all but impossible to secure a conviction. but going after murder 2 sound sooo much better in the media.

there's a possibility Zimmerman murdered Martin and got away with it by using deep legal resources. In no small part by his former Judge dad knowing who to pick for his defense.

a LOT of folks out there think the legal system was gamed!

compare results with the unfortunate women that fired a warning shot at husband with a restraining order .. getting 20 years for firing a warning shot vs an armed Zimmerman killing someone from a encounter he started by following an unarmed kid walking around exactly when folks are out. NOT say 3am.

Dude! How much tin foil do you go through in a week?

 

[_CY_]

Following an unknown individual in a poorly lit area, in a situation where he suspected the person to be potentially in the process of committing a criminal act. That is a textbook definition of a foolhardy endeavor for a CCW permit holder.

thank YOU! .. this has been my take from day one

 

[_CY_]

GZ didn't start anything. All he did was call the police and try and gather intel for the police until they arrived. When he was told to stop following Martin he did. So how is that doing something wrong? The last time I checked it isn't. I agree that he should have stayed in the car but that wasn't instigating anything. Nor was it starting the ordeal. Martin started it by going over to GZ and getting into it with him.

unless you were there ... you don't know Martin started it by going over to GZ and getting into it with him. NO way you know that to be true. that's what Zimmerman said happened. only two persons know what really happened and one of them is dead.

here's the unedited recording of initial call ... after dispatch asking Z if he is following him.. Z says yes, dispatch tells him .. OK we don't need you doing that ... Z says OK, then you can plainly hear Z's breathing change like he's running, along with noises made by running.

then Z tells dispatch he doesn't know where he will be at when cops arrive ..

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

 

[twoguns?]

I wonder how it would have turned out if zman had been an undocumented person...profiling anyone?

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Facts that cannot be disputed....

Z-man stalked a kid
The kid didn't like being stalked
The kid kicked stalker's ass
The stalker didn't like having his ass kicked so he shot the kid.
If Z-man had minded his own damn business Martin would still be alive.

Those facts alone make Z-man responsible for Martin's death.

 

[Honeybee]

If Zimmerman could, he should leave town and get away before they arrest him again for something.
Bet he doesn't have the brains to do it.

 

[Glocktogo]

Facts that cannot be disputed....

Z-man stalked a kid
The kid didn't like being stalked
The kid kicked stalker's ass
The stalker didn't like having his ass kicked so he shot the kid.
If Z-man had minded his own damn business Martin would still be alive.

Those facts alone make Z-man responsible for Martin's death.

One person cannot be held responsible for the criminal assault of another, merely for following them. Zimmerman is responsible for his actions, Martin for his. Zimmerman has paid a HEAVY price for his actions, Martin paid the ultimate price for his. As I've stated before, no one wins in this case.

 

[ch1966]

Following an unknown individual in a poorly lit area, in a situation where he suspected the person to be potentially in the process of committing a criminal act. That is a textbook definition of a foolhardy endeavor for a CCW permit holder.

Talking on a cellphone while driving endangers the public to a greater extent than anything that Zimmerman did that night.
I wonder how many hypocrites spouting this nonsense do that?

Now if a drunk driver intentionally runs a red light and hits a car driven by someone talking on a cellphone and the drunk driver dies, should the driver on the cellphone be tried for manslaughter? If said driver wasn't breaking the law, should he lose his driver's license?
Martin died due to his own fool hardy actions. Zimmerrman broke no law, acted within his rights, and the jury rightfully let him walk.

Personally, I think it's prudent to carry while investigating suspicious activity. I do it all the time when investigating my dog barking or other noises around the house at night.
If Zimmerman hadn't been armed that night he may very well be dead or a vegetable right now.

 

[yukonjack]

what horse crap!!! unless you were there ... you don't know what actually happened. in fact NO one knows what actually happened except for Zimmerman and the other person is dead.

how do you know M punched Z in the nose ... for all we know Z could have wacked himself in the nose and wacked himself in the head. in near total darkness none of the witnesses could clearly see what happened. not being able to prove what happened is a far cry from assuming what Z claimed happened as the truth.

Witness John Good testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him in the head. Or as Good said "ground and pound".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz6h-9G2g2Q

there's a butt-load of inconsistencies in Z's taped testimony. Z claims M hid behind bushes before jumping him... problem is nearest bush is some 25 yards away. there was NO blood splatters found on Z despite claiming to shot M at point blank range... etc. etc... the list of inconsistencies goes on and on a....

I've think you've been watching too many movies. There wouldn't be any blood spatter from the entrance wound on Zimmerman. Any blood spatter would have been contained within the clothing that Martin had on. In real life entrance wounds don't create that blood mess that you see in the movies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...orge-zimmerman-trial-20130709,0,6005164.story

Di Maio also testified that the hole in Martin’s shirt showed that the muzzle of Zimmerman’s gun was touching the clothing, and that the wound on Martin’s chest showed that his skin was two to four inches from the muzzle.
Di Maio said he based his conclusions on analysis of debris from the gunshot, including what he called “powder tattoo marks” surrounding the wound, which give the appearance of a reddish, circular rash on the skin. Such marks, he said, would not be present if the muzzle had been held against Martin’s skin.

“So … the muzzle of the gun was against the clothing. But the clothing itself had to be two to four inches away from the body at the time Mr. Martin was shot,” he said.

“This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman’s account – that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot,” Di Maio said.

but the bottom line is burden of proof for murder 2 belongs to state. bar rightly is pretty high, making it all but impossible to reach. hence why verdict was correct... it was the wrong charge!!

without question Z initialed the confrontation that ended up shooting M... but don't think anyone believes Z followed M with express purpose of shooting M.

if this happened in Oklahoma ... results would be completely different.

unless I'm mistaken ... it's been drilled into AS folks by cops that hang out here ... for CCW holders burden of proof shooting was justified belongs to the CCW holder.

Maybe you should have watched the trial and listened to the testimony.